2018.10.22 Snyder & Snyder CommentsNEW YORK OFFICE
--a R..RR.,-�cNUI•, v -R 14vOR
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
(212) 749-1448
FAX (212) 932-2693
LESLIE J. SNYDER
ROBERT D. GAUDIOSO
v.+rlC 11. -M DE-
(l a5v-2012 )
LAW OFFICES OF
SNYDER & SNYDER, LLP
94WMITE PLAINS ROAD
1ARRYTOWN, MEW TORK 1U!Dy1
(914) 333-0700
FAX (914} 333-0743
WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
Honorable Mayor Paul S. Roscl,berg
arid- Members of the Village Boara
Village ut Ryv Brook
-Y38 Kmg Suet
Rye rrrook, Nc W Yu. x 1 u573
lsnyder@snyderraw.ner
October 22, 2018
NEW JERSEY OFFICE
wNM v..TER..T cE-TER, _t117t! w00
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07Ivz:
(973)824-9772
FAX (973) 824-9774
Kit: 900 King StrGl, Rye Brouk. NY
Drnrt Envilvnme,,tal Impact SraLerrrent
near Hon;z-,ruule Mayor Rosenberg and Members of the v illar
.,c Bu.d:
RErL17 -v:
Tarrytown orrice
We are the attorneys fir Thi A,bols HuiLnuuuwners Association Inc. ("Thc Ar ma") i11
cvulrection with the Draft Environmental Impact Statzurent ("DEIS"), dated Septemb4, 12, 2018
refers tu as the 900 King StreCL Redevelopment (' Prrpuazd Redeve1vpme11L" or "project-').
The Arbors is it 250 tuwnhuuse complex which dircutly abuts the Proposed
Redevelop111CnL. Nut only are rxumervu3 residences in exuemely close proximity ti-, tnz project but
a15u The Arbors will share an access roan with tnc Pr-vposed Redevelopment. As such, Thu A, burs
nas a 3,gllifizant intclCst to ensure that there is a trlrruugn ,eview of the Propused Development
and all of its impacts. The Arburs stands apposed to the 1,MiUCt il, its Currrlt fvr111 due Lu the
devastating impacts that Tnc Arbors arra the cvlr1mu11ity will be forzz:U to c duce if the pluject is
approved.
The prjeCL is 1t -UL being adequately prc3z:ntca 3u that the Village Board can understz„a its
mas,litude. Ir the DEIS is read closely. the project is affv4ting more than 13.17 acres of the 1 t.77
acre propert,,. Tnc applicant eontua& that it is locating its aeyelep1illuut within the central,
previously disturbed and 5c,elupcd portion of the properLy. However, ixT r,cality, the applicant',
ptvpusal will impact 74% of the Frz;perty, thereby etteetively changing substantially all Wthe
property. Also, the scale ofthe project is not in kczp;llg with the character of the community. Tn
DEIS Omits that the prvje4L will generate 462 peopIc nut that nulrlbor is not realistic. You must
consider the 5eupc ut the project since iL calls for 301 bedre;,nls er InaependenL Living alone;
together with 9zF bedree„,s of A3si3ted Liv;1197and 48 bedrooms in the tewl,he,,les ter iltdeperrdent
living. Therefore; just in terms ..,f ncdrr7oll,s, there aro a total of 443 bedrooms. Emily, the p1ujuct
could generate at least 6001 inure residents. with this in -rase in residents on it 24 hour, 7 d a
week basis, the µppiic�,t will be causing significant adverse envirz„m,ental impacts to the Village.
As detailed herein, such Zimcteriuus i,,,pac;ts would include, among ether things, significantly
i,tc,eased traffic_ noise_ dust; air emissions, lighting, aesthetic- economic; and co.-nunity i;haracte,
;,npa:.t3. The3e impacts will adversely affect thu Village residents on a daily basis not only duri„g
the appliv.tt's ee,-servzttive CStituate of 21-30 months Zvr vvn3truct;un of this enormous project
but also far many ye=a fulli whLg the ptUject'S completion.
First and foremost; it should ne n5ted that the Village Board does not have Z -.-.y ebligatiun
tc; euiLtinue tc entertain the zoning text amenarncnt being scught by the applicant. It is re;3vcctruny
submittca that the Village Board Should reject the pr-,pz;sal i„ its Lu„e„t tent at this time. Undz,
the New York State r.,,vi,v,unental Quality Review Act �"SEyRA") ,egUlatit:,ns, when the board
is faced with a local legi3iat;ve &65io,,, such as the rezoning requested ner-,, the beard can decide
to not entertain the action and sucn decia;c„ is a Type II action ending the SEQRA review. See 6
NYCKK 617.5 C. (37). The proposed text 4„eua,,,ant ;s only tv the advantage of the-pplic. t
arta ,,.,t t�, the Village. There is absolutely no reas..n that the applicant cannot comply with tri;,
zoning text in its currc„t te,t,,. Muteovur- as detailed herein =0 the attached article ("Applivam's
Article"), the applicant`s principal, M,. Dtu,uarr has stated in a public forint ;,, Octobe, 201$ that
there i5 a vibrant office market in Rrc Brcuk. Therefore_ contrary to the uEIS, Mere i3 ,to reasv„
twat 900 King StlEet Carutol be updated to C1-.3 A ernes space and utilized bur office use, just lixe
the acvelepe, is do;,,g with 1100 King Street.
In the event thz Viilagz Burp seeks to Continue the discussion ufthc prqvj;�ct at this time-
cv,,,pating the Proposed Redev,I,-,pmcnt to a fully occupied aft -ice building rv-r the purpcse of
mralyz;ng i,npacts is trot consistent with law. Aa tnu uuurt held in Kirk Astor Drive Neignpprhuud
Assveratie„ v. Tow„ Burd tit Tnwn of P*w6orri 106 AD 2d 868 (1984)7 the board action under
SEQRA must c„cc,,,pas3 the impat:ts associated with the Nc Vnl LS 1:turent use ( a
pdrtially occupied offzz bonding) to the Proposed Development. Tnuizfine, the DEIS- is fatally
flawed in all respects and pr,5Fz:. ce,npa7i5o„3 to its current use must be revic,,ea by the Village
Board.
Ina, -.cd, tryc Arbc,s is gravely concerned with the pri,pesttl and seeks the Village Board -s
assistance in safeguarding tnu eon,mu,,;ty. Therefore, we resvectj"Ily rGqueat thus the hearing be
kept apen far at least another 3 months while The Arbors hus its expe, is review Me DEIS and the
comments fMm the Village, irs consultants and staff, and other Involved and lntemuted Agencies,
including the Planning Baurd. Our preliminary z:z;.t..„t3 are as follows.
= Su0 .osidents could easily be generated since mere are u rvt..l or 443 bedroom units, and 126 units are more moa. t,;,o
uodroom. According to recent view r om state Cvii3t13 ri&ures, the average New York state nousenora nu, 1.63
persons occupying same. Moreover, a simple :.-..,�:.—, into the numerous senior living facilities in in. tri-state a. -ea
reveals that married couples are increasingly mo -:..e :,-.to facilities such as that proposed By me appdv-;.t, t;o.-,s:stent
with the overall Lund of senior downsizing ao:o:53 i -i don of the county. Consequently, it is nigat, iRo., tnat the
applicant's fi6ures for total occupancy at me r.-vivvt a e severely underestimated. reit the very ieast, mo ziYrucant
snould revise the DEIS to take into account me Uviinvod or ,�,arried couples and other co-haQitam iiv:.b..:w,.�t ,;.ents
l.thin the project.
2
AIternutives (Chapter 17).
As ,. ted above_ comparing the Przp�;3vd R;aevelupn,Gnt to a fully occul,iva umce building ter
tM purPU3e of analyzing impacts is not cv..3isty„ t with law. Theretbre, the entirC alternative
analysis ah;vuld .mere,.Cu Cu„ent conaidons—not a rany ucz;upied urtice building.
First. in the No Action Altz:..:tivv, the applicant opines that re -use of the ca;3ti„g office building
is "not viable.” This opinion cann-.t oc auppurtcd, particularly in light of the reCc, t conu„ents
rur,-. ,nccd above i„ the Applicant's article.
Second, in the Rcsidmt;al (Non-Age-Restrit:ted) Develol r,.Lnt unae, the Existing PUL
regulations_ 17.2 and 17.2A mrvr:.n=3 to slightly tewcr trips than propo3Ca pr;JCvt, slightly shui-ter
CM„st,uCtiu„ time and other vague texm3 acv ,nacre. The5c terms should be qu.—.tificd wZ again
3rruld M130DC Compared to its current use, not tv a runy uvcupied Mice building.
Third, in the Senior Living as yr Right in 17.3. there is an ass,....ptiu., by the applicant that the
pupulatiun would be 212 pvra:.n3 h. Cu,,,parisv,l to the 462 people ass,....Cd by the appiivant for
the P.uposed Development. It wu,.17a scv.,, that with halt as many people u, tnc Pruposea
RvdCvviupme„t, the ;,,,pacts should be considerably less than the project. These impacts necd to
be better q...tif.Ld.
Fourth_ in the Reduced Den3;ty Prupvsea Project in 17.4_ the alternative ura 3r..iu, livi„g facility
fu, assisted living within just one 3tru%-A.ry shuuid be explored rather than simply taking a 20
pCrient .eduction i„ unit count tar each come z;.unt ur the proposed project. Given that tnu DEIS
has disclo3vd putv,.tiai for adverse impacts associated with tnc pruject, simply reducing the scala
by 20 percent is not mcaningrul. Rather an analysis of just one Lvmpu.,ent should be considered
such as the assisted living cun.pvnv.,t Hwy. This will also substantially r.a,.CC tnc harriC and other
aitC aevelupmrnn impacts.
Fifth, in the ReauLed Sitse Proposed Project in 17.5, the altc.native should eliminate tm
Luwnhomes and .n:,re vvn3ide.ably ,educe the assisted livin& m.d ;,,dupe„dent living (in terms of
5i4e and number of units) tv mm it nave less ot- an impact. Given tnut tnu DEIS has disclosed
putentiaal fox adverse impacts assuciµtCa with the pruject_ simply providing fur 3.nallur builaings
arta ,educed unit si4es is meaningless. A 3;t% avvelop,,,ent plan with fewer residential units,
possinly ju3t tnu U5315tc3 living units; should be pre3v.,tCd.
Sixth. an alternative prov;a;ng ru, the 3arac project but raising the rr,.nlmu.., ztgz� tui ,esidents tt3
62 does ,lot taake into account the i tical erfect of having ICSO ms older thm, 62. Ir the ,,.inimum
ago w the p,oject is 627 the project will more rully address 5eniur housing and not just v..d up being
a rental ay.Clup,,,e..t With nu set purpose. There should be a discussiun as to what services will b;, -
for seniors as oY1,o3vd to those at age 55.
Pru'ect Description (Cnanter 2).
Fir3t, = detailed above, the project descrir,t;vn .=& to provide a more accurate &p;Ctiu., of tnC
project. Thv applicant should state exactly how mm -.y a,,res ar being disturbed (regardlu33 ur
whether the =a was p,eviuusly aisturbed or not); which c,,;3ti,.g vegetates areas and the size of
those aeras are being di3t..bed W;tn a plan showing same; and a chart 3huuld be prvviaea to show
3
the difference between r,roposca zoning, existing zoning_ arra existing conditions, 3o tnat they can
r,rure easily corupared,
sN:vond, thu ;,,duperrdent living cerrrpvrrent is massive, consisting or 305,000 square feet with 301
bedrooms. The c-Umponcut is also likely to have adaidunal uses such w, 'van indoor fitness center_
surall clinical space for visiting medical prum3ional5_ hair salon_ manicure/pedicur;, µ„a ,1,a33ag-V
therapy." The DEIS tails to specify the size of tncse uses arra whether they can be utilized by nun-
.-3;dent3 and the impact of -same. That information 3M, -Ula tic prov;aed. It these units are truly for
seniu.3, then it wvuIZI seem that the three bedroom units should oc clim;,,ated. An analysis should
be dune without auen thr,-c =drootn units.
Not only is the Size of the independent living nuila;„g nearly mnrV than 100=000 square feet lamer
tha„ thu existing uttrce building_ the height of the building i3 more than 6 feet taller. The applicant
should uc: rcquircd to prepare a visual analysis comparing the existing 3t, uctuN to that pro-posea.
The visual breaks that me applicant Mludes to in the DEIS are not forthcom;ng arra Should be
pre5eutea SO that the public can trury see the magnitude ut the project. Also, the indepena'nt liv;,,g
building parkitrg will be underneath the b,.haing, allowing for 173 below grade parking spac-s.
Tncre i5 ,ro clear, aepicti-vr, of the underground parkin, m,d the access way out Of the parking areas
and ho., traffic will be distributed in corurecr;un therewith. A uc.tt:,r =alysis as to how just 173
spots will accorrmr:,aute 301 bedrooms at independent living should be r,mvided, c3pGeially in
light Ofthe std#f needed to keep trto fac;lity roti, r;,rg.
Tnirct, the assisted living component with its 90,0uu squar:, ,vet anU 85 units/beds. Only has 60
r,mxmg spots. The 60 spots appear aeticiem and should be m-vrc V-=rully reviewed. These spots
are to provide Forking rot the assisted living building's empluyees and visitors. Thee is also
reference to some of the units (not quantified) being Ocuupiea by derrrentia patients wno otter, ,reed
une on acre care. This needs to be quantinzd a„d parKir,g to be evaluated. There are referencc3 tv
"resident amen;ty spaces” but they are not def nes m,d need to be analyz-ed. Albu. the so called
"w.,Qc,ing garden" ,reeds to be clearly depicted and its aeeu,;ty analyzed, especially in
light of the site -s p,zxim;ty to a,,Lain road, King Sueet and the middle schucWhigh 3chov1 campus.
An analysis Of just the assist, -.a riving �u„rpuni�nt should be made.
Fourtn, the tum, humus plaieruenr should be more car-,rully a,alyzea. The town hvures appear to
be zznk u,,,a�Cc s3ary feature of the project__ just resulting in more corrgc3tio„ of the site. Alternative
designs without tris to,Y„ no,,,es 5nould be cvnsiaerCd.
Fifth, ;r, light of the magnitude of the Fr;icut, a ,,,uch more caretul analysis needs to be m0c:
,cgardi,rg access. The tact that this Proposed Reacvclopmc„t has a real p—uteru.ial to generate a
por,.lat;on yr o,er 500' residents as discussed above, and th7,xc 0 only one zrccess drive_ Arbor
Keep in mind the exis,ing office building at Me site is 215,000 sya.re t.et.
600 residents could easily Be generates since tRcre are a total of 443 bedroom units and.L/15 units are more iM .n
one bedroom. %onsi5ering xMe j0a iniacpendent living units, if you assume halt or tRose units Rase at L.3t 2 people
Men you sRouja Rai= j00 in those units and =3= from the ineepenaaent living emir anU then if you add 54 people
rum z4 two bedroom townhomes (assuming just "n Rave s people Ana ,-rot 1 living there) and 94 people from assiste0
living, it totals 600 residents.
4
Drive, to be �3z:d by the 250 townhome owners at the Arbors Quid the potential 600 residents of the
project_ is alarming. Ar,plicm-.t'3 proposal to have an emergence az=33 a,iveway using Village
vwued lana does „ot appear to be a true 3ei;endary access. The Village has no ubligatio,x tu bu,de„
it3 public land (especially right next to the firohou3c and police station) far the applicant. Induea,
the projovt 3heui.d nut go further without this very imrortm,t ;slue being properly analyzed.
Sixth_ the DEIS states that to mitigate losses to wedand/watercottrse buff -.3, th.. applicant will
prepare a detailed wetland mitigation pimu. With a putc„tially adverse impact, tnc DEIS ,Aust
p,Zvidc 3pecitic A,easures to appropriately mitisute that i,,,pact. A plan should also be prvpauea
that has m; ur steep slope disturbances.
Seve„th- with respect to grr<aing, the i,,,pact of the cut and fill far the un5c,-grvu„d parki„g area
fu, the i„d
depe„ ent living componcrit ,eO3 to be analyzed. The DEIS claim3 tn: r w;lf be
r:m��af or 42,6u0 cubic yards of earthen material ard rill of 51. 600 cubic yards of carthc.
materiM, m, zAv,,,,uus vvlu,ue Of -material. The applicax,t 3huuld be sure that „o blasting will be
required, rather trim, j u3t clan. it is lot anticipated. Additionally, tnc i,,,pact cA the „eighborhood
in terms of noise; dust, W.in, v;bratiuu, and other adverse impacts sho,.Id b; ,,,vxc adequately
a,ralyced.
Finally, with rc3puct to the landscaping plan, a true rpresuntatiux, of the disturbance should be
provided so that tric lma3eap;,,g can be adequately reviewed, particula,fy to ovaluate its impact on
The Arbors. There are r7,i;,Lzn�,e3 that the "majority” of the existing v;,�otutiu„ alo„g the Site',
Aurth'c,,, bottudary and between Amur D,;v-z and the suuther,uuost townhouse zlu3tcr would be
p.z3ervea. The ,,,eauiug of "majority” should b;, clariitGa dad aen,o„strated.
Land Usu, Public Pzflicy and Zuni„ (Chapter 3).
The DEIS states that the ” pr;,pu3ed zoning would not adversely impact tris ,,xt3t;Ag . ,uning disc ictS
in the study area." There are no apprai3af3 or any other evidence to support that 3tlata.,Lim. The
DEIa also states that the project would be 7,un3i3tC,,t With vthc, existing uses of the PuD wnich
inclAc The Arbo,3 and Harkness Park_ alleging that tnc bu;idings would not introduce negativz
noise or light r.,olfutiu„ to the adjoining properties and Would 3nnila,fy have very low levels of
t,at is generation. TheZ 3tatcmcnts carmut fairly be supported by tris, fa, -3. Miruver_ the
,nag„itude of the project and the r,ro.imity to Tne Arbors ruprCsent a significant totem;al adverse
i,,,pact. P,ojeut alter,tatives including reduc;Ag thu Scale of the project and consideration of ju3t
having unc zv,,,pvnent such as the assisted living structur-, 3nuuld be uo,usiaered us stated herein.
The DEIS comp�y3 it3Clf to the At,ia in Rye Brook" but that fac;iity i3 unly for i„ depeudem living,
o„e component of the projoct hc,c. Thu,ofure, a project alternative ofju3t too a33i3te(t living should
be pu,sued as a,nitigadun measum.
Gzzlzgy, SzM3 a■■d Tupugraphy (Chapter 4).
The project zzquitz3 extensive uut (42,600 cubic yards) and nil (51,000 oub;c yards) due to the
tu,derground parking u,,3uu;atea with the i,rdepe„dent living compuncnt. Give„ that an average
duu„p uuck holds about 10-14 ;.,.big. yards, the -under of magnitude of r, -,d tru4K traffic is
3taggeri„ g. The DEIS says the net is y,00u cubic yards (assumiug all of the cut matvriul i3 3ultablc
4 It shoulM Be noteM tliat tPic Atria in Rye Brook has iLs own entrance antl Moes net rely on a shared entry like the
project. Also tiie Atria Has vacancies, ,hereby questioning as to the n-63 Tor another independent living facility.
5
to be utilized as fill wn;uh a.,curdillg to the Hazardous Materials section ut the DEIS such statement
is dubious). Consequently, 9,000 eud;e yarns is the best ease scenario and nit rr,cemarily the
actual case. Even using that best case scen..�;u, yuu ,uula gleed at lean 900 dump trucks to u.ing
ttr, rill tu tn.- site. (The DEIS assumes a 20 yard capacity trunc ana thus 420 Lluck trips, but that
seems dubiz;..3 .,h..,, ..lust tucks are 10-14 yard capacity). i he DEIS nccaa to address worn case
scenario as well as beat cane tu rully analyze the iltlpact of the subsurface at.ct.c cxLavatio,L.
Moreover_ the DEIS does not assur:, that thc.e will nut be blasting or rock crushing; wh;eh could
result ;11 devastating noise to The Arbors and 3urruuL,diL1g wnnllunity, including the schcui
cwnpus. The DEIS ,nciely status rock crushing and nlu3tir.g uiz nut "anticipated" without any
adequate :3.1,purt. Tne DEIS should provide alternatives to the ,.L-Lacrgru,.nd parking and as a
proper mitigation meas"lt., cli,,,i„ate the independent living component from tnu prujcct.
The DEIS also acknowledges that the proJeet e,.ula ,.ause suit erosion arrd impact groundwater
n 3uu1, �3. ElcvatcCl glvundwatur levels were found in u;.c urea ut the site, potentially indicating
perches .tcr. Again, the DEIS Should analyze reducing the prowct`s 3cupe to i) avu;d erosion.
ii) avoid blasting, iii) uvuia a.ut ana till, iv) keep all butters intact, and v) steep slope
disturbance.
WateL s and Wetl$stds C:ha ter 5).
The pri,je.,t na3 Sign;rl:,a,lt gtading requirements and would redµcc the aLzrmap area to at least
one of the wetl.r.,a3 try at it-, Jt 1 acLe, and i,,,pavt 2.79 acres of wetlands tr=.,gh ,cgLad;Ug, new
construction, and new plantinr,3. Prujcct alt;UAnatives should be considered whereb,, thc31-- impaet3
arc ul;minaxa since Wetlands have an lmFurtcu,t Iu„etiul, in the eavirowurm.
Vc .-tat;.. and Wildlife (Chapter 7).
The DEIS emFhu3;ze3 in ,lLany places that the project is decreasing the imps„-iuus areas.
However, the reduction in iMFC1iUUS surracus is a ,Vele .41 acres while the project is arreet;..g
the wooded areas by twice tha— being .85 avrus acccLding to the DEIS. Project alternatives should
ue ccn3M,ed which do not affect the wooded areas mid au ..ut require impacting 74% of the
Pruperty. Mu, cies,, to give an idea of the magnitude of the p.;,jcct, tnc plujeut lequirus 686
significant trees tz; oe rcmuvO, .esulting in reduced shade and tree habitat taut cvv„ tc,..pvrarily
could be a significant adverse ;.pact. Alsu the tree plan envisions adding trees along Arbur Drive
to, the tuft length of the Project Site to ncip blucx views ut the pLcject hom Arbor Drive and K;.,g
Street. Prject alternatives need to be considered 3;nce the applieartt has nu right to plant trees on
Arour Dr;ve since it is uwlLcd by The Arbors. Furthermore, the -cw t.e,s plm,tcd will nut provide
shade cover m ,much as the ulU uLLes being re111ovcd.
Visual Resources anti Comm...,ity Uhn. netyR (Chapter 8).
The Visual Study is insufficient. It was not r,errurmed using any pLoven methodology and the
p.zpale. na3 inaicated it utilized a standard smartphone camera, rather than a 55111111 lens, typically
utilized as the industry standard. Moreover_ no balloon test was r,V,,.idea so that The Arbor
residents and all Village rti,3idc.Lt3could dete,111ine its visibility, panicularl,, due t„ the prejeeYs
pluposed increased height and mu33.,cne33, witn its extensive use of the property. Thr p.;,jeet
canta;,,5 buildings which would represent a 3un3tant;al d;parturu tLum collveruional suburban
QZ.V71Vp111G;LLt pattG„15.
6
The vi3ual arrlysis wholly disregarded potential impacts from Thz. Arbors and must be
substantially eX},w.(lep. Act..al ph;ut-vg�aphs ,,,ust be taken throughout r he Arnur3 duri..g lean -on
couditivrrs and computer simulatc5 tz; .e..d;r the proposed buildings- including lightin,, ar.d
mechanical equipment at full build -out. At ra3t 25 wcatiutts should be selected within The
A. burs, ;,,eluding iUcativlrs #ram second story windows ins;de of The Arbors is willing
t,-. w-rx with the Village Burd and the project sponsor to select the viewpaint3 that UFU necessary
for the hoard to taxe a Hard Leek at these issues.
Eyes, with the phutus taken in the deficient v;3ua1 study, it appears that from Harkness Park, an
inwnte.;ed %soutc-c_ the proposed buildings would be :.r.—.ly v;3;ble as stated ;,, the DEIS and
na,Za 3;gn;I,earrt adytrse itttpaVt.
Indeed, the DEIS does n1t Walcquately evaluate the visual impacts created by the project, ner aze3
it provide mitigation measures utilized t,-, a5dre33 adverse visual ittupWU-ts_ namely a reduction in
the 3i;ale of the massive project.
Soeiozcuau...ic and Fiscal Impact (Chapter 9); Cummunity Fachities (Chapter 101.
The DEIS states that in the rut...e w;thv-..t the ptoj= (tl1C "No Build" condition), the assewcd
value would be expected to decline. In lirnt er the appliCWW3 .:resit stateuiuent in the attached
Appl;:,ant's Article_ that dues nut have to be the case. Tne applica.�t has .feted in the Applicant's
Artieic that Rye Btuuk has a strung office market and that with mart;..g, re-uccupancy ut the
Wfficc uuildirzg na3 pvtettt;al. It rttay be that the applicant will have to r.e��. upg.ades
existing
to its building, like was au. c with The Atriuttt building at Westchester Avenue. Again, it is
respectfully submitted that this tsoard sh-VLO halt rurtncr review of the ptnposa-I in its current form.
and um;ourage the applicarrt to pursue the No Action altvn.ative.
The DEIS u„rcnrwicdge3 that the project could result in an increase in zF65 calls M. EMS serv;:.es
alone per year. The DEIS cw3erts that the i,tctcasu in EMS calls and expenditures would oG ernet
by an increase in revenue but it fails tv p zviae evidence to support that conclusion. The DEIS
simply states with no eviderrce that the financial imr,w„ t of an ;.ierease ;n calls would be primarily
mitigated thry-ugh future insurance recovery. It does not take into the u;,c ;uut that the EMS service
woula nave to be e-pa..d Z 3;nce it is ppetating near or at capacity. Even u3;r.g the DEIa vwit
numbers with respect to p.,lr.,., 3..1I'CZ3, the DEIS states that ail additional police officer we..ld be
required due to the scale of the at a Best er apptu.&imately $225.750 per year. However,
the ptvject will generate only $2$1,359 in tax reve....e, pn vid;,.g a stn -all spread in the ditterendal
mtween the tax revenue and cast fur police. This differential aeLs „tet take it,to avwwit other
cz;mm ,.,.ity 3erv.r, .3 such as additional fire turd EMS services which would n:, Qeeded. Unlin other
projects in the Vihage, the very ..at..te ur the puoject here relies un having sufficient c.z.erge..zy
serviues and an adverse fiscal imFw t appears likely.
A ...ure arta;ted analysis of the fiscal impacts proposed by WC ori jeet 3nuuld be provided since it
wu..15 appear that the ptojeet, as proposed_ could have an adverse finm.eial i ... pact. A inure
realistic anal,si3 3nuuld nc pruvidep, and piujeet alternatives to reduce the size; 3eupe and
components of the project shu..id ne .vr.3;dereu;„ %�riri]eCtivti theuGwith.
Ltfrastructure and Utilities (Chapter 11).
Tnc DEIS States that it is anticipated that existing elez;tr.0 3C. v;CZ M-15 zxisting gas service will
accommodate the prupu30 project. It is imperative that these 3tµt�mL..t3 be coutnmed with
documentation since thu impa,,t of aaditiunat changes to utility connectiun3 need to be
analyzed- particularly its impact un Tric Ar bur3 to the extent changes to the utility cu.IIrect;un3
attrct Arbur Drive. AIso the sufficiency ur tn,- 3cu.;tary Sewer ,reeds to be more properly
au:.u...entca a3 welt as the details on storage tanks and pumas in cu.n.ectiun with fire requirements.
These are basic: zqui.;-.mcnt3 tU assure the safety of the communit.,.
Hazardous Materials (Chapter 15).
The DEIS indicates that the project site was µ "histurie generator of ignitable wase, corrosive
waste, and spe,tt halagenic Yolvents. Storage and handlin., ur these wastes have the potential to
have affeetea the 3ub3urfdcu." Although a Phase II was conductca, the Pha3e II testing ornly
involved 9 soil borings un the 17.7 acre Site. The DEIS states that "excavation may reveal aiffc.urrt
or inure significant soil contaminutxon in situs not tested as part of this investigation.'' It u13-
indicates that "the gn-eatest potential for expo3 ..e to eu.iamina-MA materials would occur during
3U103u.1=c disturbance associated with construction of new build;. -g3 a3 part Uf the Proposed
Project". Tnc DEIS cpncuks the "Proposed Project could potentialiy result in a,, increase in
exposure for the communityuZ construction workers, " The Village Board has a duty to protect
the health_ safety and welfare of viie cum.r.unity. The middle schuol and high school filled itn
the childre,r of this community is proximate to tic prujcm With this danger lurking in connection
with thL substantial excavation orf the site (requiring 42,6v0 cubiti yards ut till tv be excavated),
project attcynartivc3 must be considered. Certailtly, the project must oc muained to avoid the
excavation and the a;3t,.rbai.. a -ut mute than 74% of the project site.
In additiun_ the DEIS states that there will nut bC hu3p;tal clue ur skilled musing care so it is not
"expected" to generate significant quantities of medicat ..a3tc. This 3tatumerrt is without support
3invc the A33;3teil L;V;rrg wrnpvnelzt intends to have dementia t,.-t;ent3 anti has 85 bedrUom units
in a 90,0000 3q,.,u.c fuut building.
Ui5U3tructian, Traffic, Noise and Air Em;33iuns (Choate. s 12, 13, 14 and 16).
The DEIS read;ly adniiits that "construction of the Prrpu3cd Prujuct would result in large noise
l.,.,..1 inc.casL3 =3 nigh nuise levels during the most noise-inter.3iv,- cun3trUCtiu11 aCtivities at the
adjacent work µ;-urs. Tnc3u noise lcvclS would have the potential to occvu rur app.uxirnately 21
months. Therefore, in the Appticant73 upiniurr, COMAructioll noise at these receptors wuuld .iia to
the level of signitiCant but temporary adv, -.-.c impact." The DEIS concedes that the project dvvzr
incl *result irr rhe cmurion ofsignificunr adve, se environmental impacts shm cannot be mitigated,
Ana tRus tnG projezt must be modified. The applicant, a privutz dcvctuper, carmot inquire a
community to 4r.Q.F.L Sign;rrcm.t adverse impacts tar nearly 2 years and iikezy lunge.. Indued, the
applicant needs to modify thu przjeet to avuM the impauts. The statement in the DEIS that the
nature and magnitude of these signiT.cunt 9-&aV%r3e impacts would be similar in all studies
QIMAHZ[tiVes, except tar the No Action alternative umn-aut bC 3uppurtud. Mumover_ as discussed
ab.-,vc, tic lulu Act;an alternative is a viable option for tri,- uppi.cmit, as evidenced by the
Applicant's Art;plc.
In µaditiun, ;t a potCntially adverse impdCL has been identifta, th, DEIS must pruvide specific
measures to at,t,rupriatcty .nitigate that ;nrpaut. Referencing that a Constmztiun Maaagemunt Plan
5
(LMP) will be prepared is inadequate and dour r.ut m;ct the requirements Of the New York Stat
E..virvruncntal Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations. T1r, DEIS notes that approximately 180
workers will uu w-vrxing at thv- w„st,uction site. and the impacts z;f that ...agnitude require the
piuject to be modified. Mcncvcr, the DEIS construction noise levels to occur at the BILA Bunk
High School, The Arbors condos, 942 Ki..g Street, and Walker Court, among othc.--., w -c
u..a.,Ceptable levels at any time and incompatible w;th tn; 3urruu„ding5. Far a comparison with
selu ted typic -.7 svvanM, if rhe project proceeds, Blind n. ook High School u,td The Arbors as well
as the other Fropertie5 would be fart=ed to endure noise as if a radio ur 1-- uum Meaner was
blasting for at least 13 montliia, according to the DEIS. These noise levels, some as high as 80
dBA levels, can be found to result in hearing Iu�s. t ne DEIS' suggestion that windows be 1C, -pt
CIZ73CU to ,nitigata the impacts is unacceptable.
Furthermore, the ant;nt ui the air quality resulti,tg in air pollutant emi33k;n3 wnich would be
occurring tar more than 6 m%..th3 du; to the use of "large non-rcad diesel engilu3, 3ua.n as
excavators_ dozers_ graders and loaders" nuudj t,, be aaaly,.ed, especially as tc its impact on schuvi
agcu;hildren. Again_ the state,nent in the DEIS that Mc nat.uC add magnitude of these significant
aav7,r3u impacts wvuld ba similar in all alternatives; except fur tn; No Action alta.native carmct
be supported. s✓urtuinly, p.Uje;t alternatives reducing the scale of the project ahcuid be;unaide,ed
which include decreasing trm ruvtpr;..t of tM builai„ga and eliminating the undergruu..d parxing
ex�avation. Accordingly, the project in its �u„C..t fvtm must be modified.
D..c t�i tnc ...ag.,;tude of the pYvject and the proximity to the sunz;vl, tnc DEIS proposes a potential
mitigation mumur-, which would allow a start tine of 7 a.m. (as of Fu3ud to the Village Code
Section 158 provision rvq..inng a start tine of S a.m. Weekdays and Saturdays of y a.....) Mu.Aay-
Sat uday_ 6 days a week in an effort to rcii.ce potential hattic impacts. The DEIS provi5u3 nu
analysis as tO how that will impact she ArMr3 and tnc use ut ArbO, Drive and what specific
Mcd—Ou.a.3 will be in place to assure the surrounding commun;ty isn�,t impacted. As noted_ review
of the traffiu .a1y3;3 by The Arbors expen will follow in another suDM63ivr, to this Honoiablc
Board.
It should Mso be noted that with respect to cons"z:t;un v;b.ation, the DEIS ,naTces statements that
.;bmt;on Irvin building demolition "would be expected-' t.-, roc ull tmuw the thrushold of damage
to the Ter muco gas pipeline and the ,csida„ts of The Arbors; some of wno arc 7o..ly 250 teat away.
Statements as to "would DC cxpc,-tcd-' to not have an impact require further aur..itivc .cvlcw,
especially when you have nearby r:,siaur.ts curd a major gas line i„ the vicinity of the projezt.
As noted above, The Arnz;.3 ha3 n;.cd an indepe„ de,u. expert LOU review the aypikm-1t'3 Traltic
Impact Study and the Village cons..lt W3 a.v......v.,ts With ,e5pcct therCty. While the DEIS 3tate3
Mat the p�cject would "result in fewer vehicul.r trips tnaa with the ,e -occupancy Of the existing
vine; buildhig u.. -Sita,” the applicant fails to adequately d;mmotrate the significant adverse
traffic impact m; p.qJ= will have Ott Vurrent traffic and tranap:,rtatiu- cc;Aiti:n,s in the
community surrounding ft; p.;jw. In any event_ the applicant's Traffic Im,,uct Study appears to
have been done when the private sUFU-Ul3 ;.. Gre;nwich (nearby Greenwich Academy, Sau.ti.d Hart,
B. u..swi;k, and Eagle Hill to name a few) uy havv bee., out of 3rs5io,t7 thereby not reflecting
real t.UEZ: patterns, and does nut evaluate more thanFZ:R per;;d3. Tne applk=k'5 position that
the projuut gill nage a r;du;ed trattic impact on the community "non ;Umpa ed to a full re -
occupancy of the exist;..g off;; use ;s not suppo,ted by the law or facts.
umu i ive Impacts a rer z.1).
The DEIS tails to fully address me sigxx;ticant adve,se cuxnuladve impacts of the pxzje�t. It ally
addresses traffic, schen district ana camrgency Services impacts as havinr u cuixxulative iu,pavt
but not in u VZ;Mprn=xx3ive u,annU,. The project is massive in scan, affccGLxg m7ore than 74% of
tnu 17 acxc site, and resulting ix, long term cumulative si&,;ricant adverse unvi,o,u„ental impacts
tu the %v„u„u„ity. The DEIS does not ade,ivatcly cvaluatiz� the p,ojcut and particularly its
�u,uulative impacts which include ling tc— v;3ua1 impacts, traffic impacts, noise and air quality
impacts, socio-economic in„p-.-.t3 vaulting i„ a potential fiscal drain on the villarc du,, tu EMS,
fire and other acx vicu3, as well as avu-0able erosion and wetlands ;.paLt3,
Conclusion
In light of the tvregoing comments, wz; rv3pcctfahy ,uquUbt that the Village Board halt any
turthex ,eview of the proposed text amendments and pxvject ;xx it, current form_ and avoid the
d„vu3tuting ;xxxpnas that the p,uject will impose on the comm,...4y. It snuula be nuted that the
Village Boars az;%3 m;t nave zany obligation to eo„ti,tue to entertain the zz; r,;xxg tZ:At zirrtet,d,nc,it
being sought by the appliz ,t. It is xi-,3pCct1ully submitted that the Village Board shouts zj:.;-,t the
p,Upu551 i„ its current form. Contrary tz; the DEIS, there is no season that 900 King Street cannot
IOU updated to Class A office space and utilized for vmcc u3c, just lixG thU aeveloper is doing with
1100 Kixxg Strut, ,athe, than aftcet The Arbors and the commuxx;ty in a aclete,iou5 way for years
to come.
If the Village Board continues tz; review the pxojuct, on behalf of -The Arbors; we imt,1�R
that the Village Board provide us with ample time uf at 1��t 3 ,months to have our experts,
innuaiug a to„d party t,attic expert_ submit a proper anal.,;56 z;i- the 3;gnifczmt adverse tiaftic
impacts a33-Vzizttea riith the project. We also request that the village Board acma7xa a bettcr
analysis of the alternativz:3, aubstzmtially ,educing the scale of the project and providing fvx only
vie component of living such as u33;3tcd liv;xxg to xeauee the signitiCamt adverse impacts J the
pti5jea in its Mrreut form,.
Thank yUu fol your CV„5lderution.
w: The Arbors
Z:1S5DATx,WrDATx,a3y%WPwoorsiE)EI5wT.Raievu2 dven
Res,,- ly 'ub ttea,
Lersli . S„yder
10
Vol. 54 No. 41- An edition of Westmore News
rrlday, Osmber tc - r nursday, October 18, 2018
Rye brook's biggest landowner
speaks about firm's plans for village
BY )(TICK HUSKY
Peter Dun=.—, the President and CEO of
Manhattan ...�.t vsiate firm W.-,, Co3nlvrt
507--, Inc., now nye lsrooK's niggest ianO-
ownerand landlord, swpped intothe publiceye
in Weswheswr County for the first t;me last
Thursday, Oct. 4 at a srvcial mornings meet4%
ofthc Hudso-. Ciew-r.y Assoc. -.U0.. ortceatto. a
(HGXA)Ce......err:REanaIn:aielitt�
in w nite mains ror a one -nous "here's wno we
are and what we're doing" report.
Duncan held nothing back.
His firm's current develt,Y.,aents are making
rw.,n...,.., wnav
�tamTe�d, M. as wen as rye nrook, out Tor
residents anti elected leaders in nye $rook,
it is Duncan and his ti.wn that are, without
questiarr, "the elerhant in the room" due to
their sheer size.
Cv...Ivrt :. nvn:;.a my ,.n,,_ W t'Bav 7_Ivt.
ol.t oT me omce property at YVU I,,ing .51.
taenind Village Hall) into a 445,000 -square -
foot, age-resincted (5 5 years and older) project
including 24 townhomes, 160 indevvndent
livine units; and tsD assisted/mumo.—y units,
io. W total of,459 ....'Is.
i no nrm nas also purcnasea wnat was me
reckson Executive Park at 1100 King St., six
Class A office buildings with a total of 560,000
square feet on a 44.2-avre site.
11 e:.t.I�titnat� ne..n:al..—:bougxtt
90OKingSt.,built formin inty8a,they atfirst
thought they had ricked up a buildings at low
.,oat with major rental rt.ssibilities. It was, as he
..alts:rilS3,Ine;--- :.. a
rental marKet Ior iFus 7 -Mass C.-' ouilaing, aria
it became a financial drain. Thus, in trying to
figureout what could possibly be done with -the
Site map showinr, layout of 269 -unit senior housine development proposed for the
rror.:rty at 900 K;nb at...-. wni:eli ..n Amer =;ldinr, now sits.
COORTFSY Of GEORGE CO -FORT & SuNti, INC
cant! untierneam YOU ring, Comfort's studies
showed that there was a need for a competitor
and alternative w Rye City's The Osborn, which
Wigs itsclr ..a "wcstunu4ter Ca.... 's r.....:e
�.,'ti. living ncility"
Unlike the Osborn, Comfort's plans for
900 Kings are to make it a rental -only facility,
with no ma�vr Groan avvr.a Nuyuavait$ to be "
:cert. A:; uuncan ompnas:zeu, %emTon is
in the ousiness of long-term income, not sales.
The project is going before Rye Brook's
Board of Trustees on Monday, Oct. 22, at 7:30
p.m. tar apuw:c neari..s. lntvi.sc orrosition to
the size of the site pian is expected Mom. 1 nG
Arbors Homeowners Associadon, represe.a-
uir, o....GT7 Of a Co�.dOaaaua;u devGloF.uen.
adjoining YuU Icing,gat IJ.� ...u. ,u:8 ne rusty
expecw the project will oe approveti, as 'ane
senior market is explodiny,."
Duncan was asked if he had similar plans
ro; I lUO &in,. Inv vrncv nark is a rrof'.rty
WnoSe previous o—ea. KcwK$anlZiLr[ �eea.
Realty Corporation, c,aimeti in its ct=ltlo.=
Please -turn to page zu